EDITOR IN CHIEF

FEATURED PRODUCTS

DC Collectibles Bombshells Supergirl Statue
Are you a fan of Kara Zor-El? Supergirl looks like a pinup girl from the 1940s and 1950s! Statue is sculpted by artist Tim Miller. She sure looks happy! Sculpted by artist Tim Miller, the DC Comics Bombshells Supergirl Statue stands a little over 10 1/2-inches tall, with a look inspired by the pinup girls of the 1940s and 1950s. If you're a Supergirl reader or fan of the Kara Zor-El, you must add this amazing cold-cast porcelain statue to your collection! Ages 15 and up.

DC Collectibles Bombshells Supergirl Statue
Are you a fan of Kara Zor-El? Supergirl looks like a pinup girl from the 1940s and 1950s! Statue is sculpted by artist Tim Miller. She sure looks happy! Sculpted by artist Tim Miller, the DC Comics Bombshells Supergirl Statue stands a little over 10 1/2-inches tall, with a look inspired by the pinup girls of the 1940s and 1950s. If you're a Supergirl reader or fan of the Kara Zor-El, you must add this amazing cold-cast porcelain statue to your collection! Ages 15 and up.

CALENDAR

Noteworthy Superman dates to remember...
August 7: John Glover, Lionel Luthor in Smallville, born in Salisbury, Maryland in 1944.
August 7: Writer Paul Dini (Superman: The Animated Series) born in 1957.
August 7: Michael Shannon, Zod in the 2013 Man of Steel movie, born in Lexington, Kentucky in 1974.
August 7: Eric Johnson, Whitney Fordman in Smallville, born in Edmonton, AB in 1979.
August 14: Phyllis Thaxter, Martha Kent in Superman: The Movie, dies in 2012, aged 90.
August 15: Scott Cranford, the official town Superman of Metropolis Illinois from 2000-2007, born in 1967.
August 17: Traditionally recognized as the birthday of Lois Lane.
August 20: Amy Adams, Lois Lane in 2013 Man of Steel movie, born in Aviano, Italy in 1974.
August 24: In 1993, Superman returns from the dead in Superman #82.
August 28: Writer and artist Jack Kirby (Superman's Pal: Jimmy Olsen) born in 1917.
August 30: Glenn Ford, Jonathan Kent in Superman: The Movie, dies in 2006, aged 90.

OUR SHOWS

TRANSLATE

Sponsored Ads

Oh no! Where's the JavaScript?Your Web browser does not have JavaScript enabled or does not support JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript on your Web browser to properly view this Web site, or upgrade to a Web browser that does support JavaScript; Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome or a version of Internet Explorer newer then version 6.

View Thread

Wait, wait, wait. The woman who was created to be entirely submissive to the Super-Man, then turned into a nymphomaniac in the '60s and sort of existed since then, only clearly defined as a person and shining within her relationship with the alpha-male she was sleeping with, is NOW being treated in a sexist way? There have been great moments in Lois Lane's history, as a character, but let's not pretend her actual treatment ever lived up to her fame as the proto-feminist icon in comics.

While Lois is vital to Superman through the relationship, her being defined by it is every bit as sexist as her usual Victoria Secret model portrayal. It's actually a lot more, in fact.

What we have now is a Lois Lane who runs a TV station, who is an entirely separate entity from Clark and she's no longer just the girl with the desk next to Clark's, just because the mythos says she has to be there. This is the strongest, most self-sustained Lois Lane portrayal we've seen in a very long time.

Also, in all my years as a fan, I have never seen anyone suggesting Clark should be a playboy. Then again, how does one define the title? Because what I have seen is far too many people suggesting that he should just put it in the fridge until Lois turns around. Fair enough and far be it for me to argue with people's personal taste over this, but Clark being involved with other women before Lois does not make him DC's Tony Stark.

Also, Clark's a nerd now. Like, full-on. He's a Trekkie. Shame on all of you for not pointing this out. I'm disappointed.

What we have now is a Lois Lane who runs a TV station, who is an entirely separate entity from Clark and she's no longer just the girl with the desk next to Clark's, just because the mythos says she has to be there. This is the strongest, most self-sustained Lois Lane portrayal we've seen in a very long time.

That's what I'm saying as well. She's in a leadership position, authority figure.

Whoa, first of all, no one said she was defined by the relationship. Though I will point out right now how Morrison pretty much suggested—not outright, but the way I read it his statement sure came off that way—at the end of Action #2 that she was stronger because she "isn't tied to any guy."

[img]http://oi44.tinypic.com/34t642c.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

Whether she’s married to him or not she’s a strong, independent woman—them not being together doesn’t make her any stronger than she was before, just like her being married to him doesn’t make her weak. It’s still a sexist thing to say that a woman who chooses to be in a committed relationship is “less feminist” than one who isn’t. I have no problem with him saying that she’s smart and clever and a rockstar like he said above, but it’s not because she’s not married to Superman, it’s because she’s smart and clever and a rockstar.

She was created to be "entirely submissive" to the Superman? I wouldn't say that at all. The 30s/40s portrayal showed her to be a tough, witty ace reporter who just happened to be in love with Superman. Does this look like someone who's entirely submissive to anyone?

[img]http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/characters/lois-lane/golden-age.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

Her character varied during the Silver Age because it reflected the 'common' view of women at the time. It's gotten better over the years, and even before the marriage ( i.e. Byrne's Man of Steel ) she was still a very strong character. I never said that she had to be married to him or even be dating him to continue to be an icon. My point is--at least in Action--she's being sidelined as just another minor character. Her father, Sam Lane, who was only created in 1959, was given a heck of a lot more "screentime" than Lois--who first appeared in Action #1 and has been around ever since, obviously she must be pretty important to the mythos--in the first few issues. My problem isn't with Superman, the only thing that I think would make it better is her missing that frontline reporting we usually see her doing, because it would be perfectly in character for her to miss it. She's a reporter at heart. I don't mind seeing her in a position of authority, but I just don't think that she'd enjoy it more than her job as a reporter. To me at least all it looks like is she was given that job as a producer just so she wouldn't come into contact with Superman as much so that the writers would be free to have him pursue other women. It just looked like a poorly-concealed plot device the way they wrote it.

In the first issue they gave Lois a boyfriend, Jonathan ( you had to use his dad's name, really? ). I don't have a problem with that at all, and to be honest I really didn't feel all that bad for Clark--it's his loss for not voicing his feelings and instead being all passive-aggressive about it. I'm not against either of them seeing other people for the time being, but it makes zero sense to me to cut off both the Lois/Clark working dynamic and the Lois/Superman dynamic either just so Superman can get some like Bruce Wayne. I've seen the argument brought up that he isn't as interesting because he was in a relationship with Lois and not another super-powered woman. Now my prediction is they broke them up so that he could date Diana ( which I'm against for other reasons, even though I think Diana's awesome, but that's not my point ) or some other character, but they don't have to scale back their interaction together as characters just so that can happen.

She was created to be "entirely submissive" to the Superman? I wouldn't say that at all. The 30s/40s portrayal showed her to be a tough, witty ace reporter who just happened to be in love with Superman.

She was feisty and even rude to pretty much everyone, except Superman. Especially in those early stories, Siegel was projecting his sexual frustration so much your butt-cheeks could get bruised just by looking at the pictures. Lois was one of the earliest feminist icons in comic books, because of the state of gender politics at the time. She was still largely defined by her man, though.

I don't mind seeing her in a position of authority, but I just don't think that she'd enjoy it more than her job as a reporter. To me at least all it looks like is she was given that job as a producer just so she wouldn't come into contact with Superman as much so that the writers would be free to have him pursue other women. It just looked like a poorly-concealed plot device the way they wrote it.

And yet, she's prominently featured in all 4 issues so far. Even if they are trying to open up some space for Clark's dating life, they haven't done any harm to Lois as a character.

Now my prediction is they broke them up so that he could date Diana

I will never understand the fascination some writers have with this concept either. It's like some weird fixation with master race hotness.

Introvert, Nerd...........Trekkie? Kind of like tomato tamato.

Oh, I was just teasing because nobody brought up the Trek reference in #4.

She was feisty and even rude to pretty much everyone, except Superman. Especially in those early stories, Siegel was projecting his sexual frustration so much your butt-cheeks could get bruised just by looking at the pictures. Lois was one of the earliest feminist icons in comic books, because of the state of gender politics at the time. She was still largely defined by her man, though.

That's the thing--she's Lois, she's known to be feisty and rude, as it's a part of her character now as well as then--that's not to say that her character, like Superman and Clark, has evolved as time has gone by, but I think it's safe to say that the definitive Lois Lane is tough as nails, in-your-face--because let's face it, in a field dominated by men even now she has to be. And later on, when we learn she's a military brat--she's probably had that mentality drilled into her from childhood. But underneath all that there's a vulnerability that she only shows to people close to her, hence why she was like that with Superman.

And yet, she's prominently featured in all 4 issues so far. Even if they are trying to open up some space for Clark's dating life, they haven't done any harm to Lois as a character.

It's shoddy writing to me. What I did like was Issue 2 when she came up with the idea of guiding Superman toward the monsters by using Jimmy's camera. Believe me, I'm content with how much she's featured in Superman, I just don't think that--knowing Lois's personality--that she'd want that job. Time after time it's been proven that she'd want to be where the action is, which is why she was always getting into trouble. I just feel as if not enough time was spent revealing why she made that decision in the first place, because from my viewpoint it just looks like it came out of nowhere. There has to be a reason besides "print is dying" for her to want to quit being a correspondent and later a TV anchor and instead become a news producer. I'm perfectly fine with her not being an investigative journalist as she was in the past ( because that was one of the careers I had been looking into for a while, and print is dying, so realistically it makes sense ), but something like an anchor or a news correspondent makes a lot more sense than a television news producer. She just doesn't seem like the type to enjoy that sort of work.

I will never understand the fascination some writers have with this concept either. It's like some weird fixation with master race hotness.

That's the thing--she's Lois, she's known to be feisty and rude, as it's a part of her character now as well as then--that's not to say that her character, like Superman and Clark, has evolved as time has gone by, but I think it's safe to say that the definitive Lois Lane is tough as nails, in-your-face--because let's face it, in a field dominated by men even now she has to be. And later on, when we learn she's a military brat--she's probably had that mentality drilled into her from childhood. But underneath all that there's a vulnerability that she only shows to people close to her, hence why she was like that with Superman.

I disagree with this. This is the characterization "Lois & Clark" went for as well and it's one of my issues with that show. Lois doesn't need a de facto vulnerability. If it's there, it has to be consistent regardless of the situation and environment, otherwise all her attitude is mere compensating in front of others.

Besides, in the early Superman stories in the '40s it wasn't a matter of vulnerability. It was just the "right man to put her in her place". No, really, it was pretty insulting when you scratched the surface.

It's shoddy writing to me. What I did like was Issue 2 when she came up with the idea of guiding Superman toward the monsters by using Jimmy's camera. Believe me, I'm content with how much she's featured in Superman, I just don't think that--knowing Lois's personality--that she'd want that job. Time after time it's been proven that she'd want to be where the action is, which is why she was always getting into trouble. I just feel as if not enough time was spent revealing why she made that decision in the first place, because from my viewpoint it just looks like it came out of nowhere. There has to be a reason besides "print is dying" for her to want to quit being a correspondent and later a TV anchor and instead become a news producer. I'm perfectly fine with her not being an investigative journalist as she was in the past ( because that was one of the careers I had been looking into for a while, and print is dying, so realistically it makes sense ), but something like an anchor or a news correspondent makes a lot more sense than a television news producer. She just doesn't seem like the type to enjoy that sort of work.

I'm fairly positive it's a temporary situation. I'll be surprised if she's not back working the stories herself sooner or later. For now, it's a well-deserved promotion and a position that may enable her to do some good from a place of authority. Plus, as shown in #2 which you mentioned, it opens up the chance for a new dynamic between her and Superman and Clark.

What was the reference?

Clark and Jimmy greeted each other at the station doing the Vulcan salute.

I don't think they broke them up just so they could "Have him date" anyone. You guys are just jumping to conclusions. I know I'm probably the last person that should lecture someone on jumping to conclusions but that's just ridiculous.

Think about it, they had a creative meeting and during that meeting they said "We should break up Lois and Clark so he could date _______" That's dumb. And I don't believe that.

IMO they broke them up to get back to the base story line. The marriage had run it's course and it was time to do something.

We all know where this is going. THEY WILL GET MARRIED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So get off it already, if they do have Clark date someone well then fair enough, because Lois is. And that’s a genius idea because people removed from Superman will go “WTF?!? He’s dating someone? That’s not right I need to read some Superman comics and see what’s up.”

But it will just draw interest because we know what is destine to happen. It will probably be years from now but they will get married again. I have always said the triangle love story is the base and main staple for the Superman story line but the eventual relation ship and marriage is the end of it.

You guys are acting like the writers are out to get and screw over the fans, like they had a meeting and said "Yeah F#@k these fans." IMO your wrong, they are just wanting to have expressive freedom to write some material and potently draw in some new readers.

P.S. I can't believe a Superman back story is drawing so much attention when the main story is just like "whatever."

I disagree with this. This is the characterization "Lois & Clark" went for as well and it's one of my issues with that show. Lois doesn't need a de facto vulnerability. If it's there, it has to be consistent regardless of the situation and environment, otherwise all her attitude is mere compensating in front of others.

Besides, in the early Superman stories in the '40s it wasn't a matter of vulnerability. It was just the "right man to put her in her place". No, really, it was pretty insulting when you scratched the surface.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Lois's character ( at least in season 1, because that's honestly the only season I've seen part of--I'm still working through the series ) is one of my favorite parts of the show, and the same with Smallville ( one of the few things imo, they got right ). I like how she's written in Man of Steel and Secret Origin: she's stubborn, she's strong, she's opinionated, yet she has a heart of gold. She's a diamond in the rough. I mean if she didn't have some degree of sensitivity and was a complete jerk for lack of a better word, I find it hard to believe that Superman would fall for her ( which is why I think Clana in Smallville made no sense whatsoever when she started going crazy but that's beside the point ).

No, not at all in the 40s. I think this started more in the Modern Age, and to be honest I'm not as much of a fan of 30s/40s Clois as I am of modern age Clois. The way it was written did come off as offensive, but I didn't mind Lois as a standalone character as much as say, the Silver Age Lois ( though I don't blame her for not being in love with Clark at the time ).

I'm fairly positive it's a temporary situation. I'll be surprised if she's not back working the stories herself sooner or later. For now, it's a well-deserved promotion and a position that may enable her to do some good from a place of authority. Plus, as shown in #2 which you mentioned, it opens up the chance for a new dynamic between her and Superman and Clark.

I was hoping it was, and I began to think they might decide to go in this direction after Issue 4. I don't disagree that she deserved that promotion, but I think the issue is whether or not she'd take it, and whether or not she enjoys it. I'm fine with her doing it now, but I don't think that she'd enjoy it long-term.

Clark and Jimmy greeted each other at the station doing the Vulcan salute.

Can't believe I missed that. That's it, I love this Clark Kent. Not completely ( his resemblence to Harry Potter is something I'll probably never get over ) but at least he's somewhat adorkable. I do like Jimmy though.

I don't think they broke them up just so they could "Have him date" anyone. You guys are just jumping to conclusions. I know I'm probably the last person that should lecture someone on jumping to conclusions but that's just ridiculous.

Think about it, they had a creative meeting and during that meeting they said "We should break up Lois and Clark so he could date _______" That's dumb. And I don't believe that.

IMO they broke them up to get back to the base story line. The marriage had run it's course and it was time to do something.

We all know where this is going. THEY WILL GET MARRIED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So get off it already, if they do have Clark date someone well then fair enough, because Lois is. And that’s a genius idea because people removed from Superman will go “WTF?!? He’s dating someone? That’s not right I need to read some Superman comics and see what’s up.”

But it will just draw interest because we know what is destine to happen. It will probably be years from now but they will get married again. I have always said the triangle love story is the base and main staple for the Superman story line but the eventual relation ship and marriage is the end of it.

You guys are acting like the writers are out to get and screw over the fans. IMO your wrong, they are just wanting to have expressive freedom with write some material and patiently draw in some new readers.

I rarely jump to conclusions, if anything I'd consider it an educated guess.

The reboot has already completely done away with some familiar concepts to the Superman mythos--the suit's been retconned and Superman has been made darker and edgier ( a destruction of why I love Superman to begin with in Action's case ). Now a lot of people who aren't fans of Superman always make fun of him because of his bottomless faith in humanity, and the fact that he's not as quick to violence as some other superheroes. They don't think he's cool because he's not "badass" enough. The reboot seems to have thus far catered to that sort of reasoning, by returning Superman to his "more-badass" roots in the 1930s as seen in Action. A lot of people were clamoring for a suit change to update a basic design that had worked for 70+ years. They threw the old suit out and replaced it with the armor in Superman and the temporary t-shirt and jeans ensemble in Action.

Now as far as Superman's behavior goes, I know he's 'still learning' and 'just starting out', and there is sure enough a visible difference between his attitude in Action and Superman, which shows that there will be some character growth, which I'm definitely happy about.

The suit--I doubt they're going to change that any time soon.

The marriage: There are many people who have the opinion that the marriage needed to go because with it, Superman was too 'perfect'. I disagree with that because super or not, he's not perfect, Lois isn't perfect, and no marriage is perfect. He didn't have a perfect life. He still had to make sacrifices, he still had to maintain secrecy with other people--just not with Lois--and he still had to worry about his enemies harming the ones he loved. His life was by no means perfect.

The other argument is the one I mentioned several times--some want Superman to be like other heroes and have other lovers aside from Lois. In my opinion at least, DC is trying to appease those fans.

I'd like to believe they want to tell the story of Lois and Clark again, just in a new, fresh, and entertaining way, but I just don't share your optimism.

Oh, and as far as the writers not being out to get their fans--I agree, they're probably not doing this intentionally. I know he's not a writer, he's an artist, but I'd like to draw to your attention to this August post by Rags Morales on his blog.

"Superman? Superman sucks." That's what I told Geoff Johns one Wizard Con night in Philadelphia. "Superman is passe'. He's been split up into every superhero now out there. He's just not relevant anymore."

Geoff at the time, was just getting the Secret Origin machine up and running with James Robinson, with whom he had just finished having dinner. Geoff protested, but I wouldn't budge. "Who's better?" he asked. "Batman. Batman at least has something going on besides his costume that works." That was my answer and I was sticking to it.

My sentiment was based on Superman as he had become. When I was a kid, Neal Adams was the man on Superman. Despite the stories being as milk toast as I could stomach them, he, like he always does, took what was happening and elevated it. But since then Superman seemed to stay in this redundant vacuum of 'boyscout laughing at feeble attempts by Luthor and robots trying to knock the smile off his perfect face'. Bleh. Moreover, he was becoming more and more omnipotent to the point that villains were having to go to increasingly absurd lengths just to give him a reasonable challenge.

Then he got married.

What? Talk about jumping the shark.
See, when a character, whose whole existence is to sacrifice a normal life for the sake of humanity, becomes domesticated he loses his teeth. His concern doesn't become the world, but his own personal world. Back in the day, when Lois would be in danger, she was the metaphor for all of us. Humanity personified who was rescued, returned to safety, then left wondering 'who was the masked man?' Now Lois became his only world that was to be balanced with the rest of us. This changed Lois as well. She went from being this snarky, stubborn, beautiful pain in the ass, to the wife wondering if her husband would survive the current omnipotent menace challenging him, and still make it back home for lasagna. Any attempts to bring them back to what they were, felt clunky to me. He was a hero, husband, or brow beating dad, depending on who he was interacting.

There's the nutshell. Superhero who increasingly becomes more powerful as he is challenged, brought back down to earth as a spouse as his origin gets re-envisioned over and over again.

I find the notion that Superman being married is a detriment to his character pretty offensive.

This is a quote from Newsarama's article on this summer's Comic Con:

DC's panels also created a buzz during a discussion of Superman's new status. In discussing that Superman would now be single and that his heroic identity would not be trusted, editor Matt Idelson said that this made the character easier to relate to since he would no longer be a celebrity superhero and an award winning journalist who was also married to a "trophy wife." While many in the audience nodded in agreement with this, other fans, male and female, immediately took offense to the description of Lois Lane as a trophy wife.

"Where did they get that idea?" asked a male fan in the hallway. "Lois is a great writer and gets into danger all the time and sometimes she's the one to tell Superman what he needs to hear. She's a partner. If you wanna change it, okay, but there was never anything trophy wife about her, she always had guts and a brain."

The fact that one of DC's top editors called Lois Lane a trophy wife tells me a lot about the direction they're going with this reboot.

I agree with Rags that they were at struggling to find a way to write a good Superman story. So what did DC do? DC killed him and then married him.

Argue that, the marriage was a publicity stunt. It will happen again, but it will be years out (like I said).

Superman is about a man moving to a foreign place and devoting his life to save it. Married or not.

What's wrong with a "trophy wife?" In my mind that's the perfect wife. A smart beautiful woman that your proud to be married to. Just like Lois Lane would be a "trophy wife!"

It doesn’t mean a "hot piece of a$$" you can brag about. It's offensive to me that anyone suggest that a great woman you can be proud of can't be called a "trophy wife.” I would call my wife a “trophy wife” because if I married her she would be my pride and joy. A trophy to life and a “trophy wife.”

Whatever, I'm officially done with this now. I'm convinced that this whole thing isn't worth the energy. I was excited and anticipating how this relationship would pan out.

But now because of people like you being so negative and hateful about it I just made my last post and comment on it. It's not worth it, I'm done.

I agree that at the time it was a publicity stunt, but I think that for the most part the writers did an excellent job of portraying the super-marriage.

Maybe years and years later they will get married, who knows? I just believe that breaking them up is a mistake, and I'm just offering my opinion of their possible reasoning for breaking them up.

You have to look at the quote in context. Generally speaking it is a negative depiction of women, which is why the way he used it was offensive to many people. I don't dispute that Lois was Superman's pride and joy but she was much much more than that, and the way Mr. Idelson described Lois was insulting to many. Lois Lane was not just a trophy wife, and the way he referred to her made it seem as if he was suggesting it. His exact words were something along the lines of Superman wasn't a "boy scout" and he didn't have a "trophy wife". The fact that that's all he could have said about Lois Lane just shows how much misunderstanding of the character there is, at least to me. He had the choice of using a less offensive description, and if you read what I posted it wasn't just me who found his language offensive. It's been used in the past as a derogatory term with a negative connotation, and it's not something people usually throw around in everyday conversation. In any case what he said was far from PC.

I'm a fan of their relationship whether they're married or not. I am looking forward to how it develops and seeing if they ever get beyond the friend zone, but nothing is written in stone.

Negative and hateful? I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't recall using the word hate anywhere or making any personal attacks. If I came off that way, I'm truly sorry, but I was merely presenting my opinion and having a civil discussion.

I'm a fan of Lois & Clark (the relationship, I mean) as much as the next person. I also disagree with the many, many people who oppose their marriage. But there has been an undeserved and somewhat irrational backlash from the undoing of the marriage; which isn't even undoing, it's just a reset.

The idea that they did it so that Clark could date around is also one that came with this backlash and it's unsubstantiated. Regardless of whether or not we think the marriage was handled well, the fact that it was a publicity stunt is telling toward the type of story earlier Superman interpretations intended to offer.

The point is, they've been trying to get rid of the marriage for a very, very long time. Almost since it happened. They could just never come up with a decent way to do it. The reboot gave them the chance. I actually disagree that we're definitely heading toward a wedding again. It's very possible it's not going to happen this time around. But it very well may happen again. It's not some sinister plan to modernize Superman by having him sleeping around. Quite the contrary, a big number of writers and editors disliked the marriage, because they saw it just as that at the time. It destroyed the duo's dynamic, as far as they were concerned. What we're seeing now is a 70-year-old status quo with a couple of twists that may enrich it.

The thing that upset me about them doing away with the marriage--or resetting if you prefer--is that there are hundreds of character-driven stories that still could have been told with the marriage still intact, about how Lane and Kent are working together to do their best to make the world a better place as equal partners. Because it seems to me that they've gotten rid of something that didn't need changing. It's a matter of opinion, of course, but by no means was Lois a burden to him in any way, as some comments I've read--including Morales's--seem to suggest. That's a failure on the writer's part, not their marriage.

Now I realize that they don't need to be married to do that, and I also realize that they are still fighting injustice together ( my main example is Superman #2 like I mentioned ), and Lois is going after Glenmorgan ( or I guess his enforcer ) in Action #1, just in a different way then Clark/Superman.

But here's where I favor the dynamic in Superman more than the dynamic is Action--in Action it seems to me like she's acting as if he doesn't exist ( much like the earliest original Action Comics issues ironically, but one would think in the twenty-first century we've moved past, as you said, the writer "projecting his sexual frustration", as the story has evolved enough so that she no longer does that ). They work at rival newspapers, they're not friends yet--fair enough. But I want to see them become friends, and have that working partnership and friendship--at this point not romantically, hey, I'm fine with that. I want it to get to the point where it is more like the status quo, because right now things just look too different--and not in a good way--for me not to question the storytelling. I want to see good writing ( and I know DC is capable of delivering, because they have in the past ) and not simply in terms of plot and action, but in terms as character interaction as well ( which is equally as important to me ), and I am seeing that in Superman--it's not perfect, but in my opinion it's better than that of Action.

No, that's not at all true. The TIMING of the wedding when it actually occurred was a stunt but the IDEA that they would be married was not a stunt. It was a carefully plotted plan that was put into motion for several years. It also wasn't a "new" idea as anyone who really knows Superman history knows that there were a lot of people who wanted Superman and Lois to be married back in the Bronze age which is why we got the Earth-2 story for the Golden Age characters. That was done to try and follow through with the idea that they could eventually have their life together. The idea that they would be married in the modern story was not a stunt. Only the TIMING of it was due to the television show. This is a point that many people continue to get wrong.

I agree with Rags that they were at struggling to find a way to write a good Superman story. So what did DC do? DC killed him and then married him.

I think they were struggling quite a bit for the last 3 years with the WONK and Grounded arc. But back in the 90's? Sales were very, very good. The success of the Death of Superman story was quite literally an accident. They didn't kill him and then marry him. The intention was to MARRY him period because the editors truly believed that was the right direction to follow through with FINALLY for these characters after decades of hinting at it and trying to get there. The Death of Superman arc occurred as a STALLING mechanism for the marriage. Had the television show not been put in production Superman and lois would have been married for LONGER. The marriage itself was not a stunt. Only the TIMING was a stunt. The marriage was planned long before.
Argue that, the marriage was a publicity stunt. It will happen again, but it will be years out (like I said).

Superman is about a man moving to a foreign place and devoting his life to save it. Married or not.

I don't think anyone is saying that he has to be married. I'm a fan of the relationship whether they are married or not. But it's also been a story since the beginning that has a love story sort of woven in as a main component of the myth. It makes sense to me that as the years progressed and as the way we treat women in our culture has changed and progressed that the idea that Lois and Clark would love as equals together as opposed to trapped in an endless triangle that was, in many ways, rooted in sexism when it was created would also progress.

What's wrong with a "trophy wife?" In my mind that's the perfect wife. A smart beautiful woman that your proud to be married to. Just like Lois Lane would be a "trophy wife!"

The word "trophy wife" has some very unfortunate cultural connotations. What it means to you is not what it has always meant in our culture. That's like me saying that I don't understand what is wrong with calling a person of color an offensive name because I don't view it that way. The bottom line is that the term has often been used to downplay a woman's worth and identity and only view her as a beautiful possession of a man. I understand that's not what it means to YOU but that has been the interpretation of the term in our culture for many years.

It doesn’t mean a "hot piece of a$$" you can brag about. It's offensive to me that anyone suggest that a great woman you can be proud of can't be called a "trophy wife.” I would call my wife a “trophy wife” because if I married her she would be my pride and joy. A trophy to life and a “trophy wife.”

I understand that's how you see it. I'm trying to offer you a different perpsective. It's offensive to me as a woman that men aren't more aware of the way in which language can be used to degrade women in our culture and how we all have to take steps to eliminate it. And just for the record? I'm a young married woman. And my husband is more than proud to be married to me. But I can pretty much guarantee that he would rather shoot himself than call me a trophy wife because he knows what that term means in our culture.

Whatever, I'm officially done with this now. I'm convinced that this whole thing isn't worth the energy. I was excited and anticipating how this relationship would pan out.

Who says you can't be excited? I'm honestly confused why you are getting so angry and mean. This is a forum. Isn't the purpose for all of us to share and to try and learn from each other?

But now because of people like you being so negative and hateful about it I just made my last post and comment on it. It's not worth it, I'm done.

No one is being "hateful" to you. We are all just sharing different opinions. That's the point of a forum. People do not have to agree with you all the time. Everyone's opinion is valid here. It's your choice if you choose not to participate but I don't think anyone has been "hateful" to you simply because people have been sharing different viewpoints.

I'm a fan of Lois & Clark (the relationship, I mean) as much as the next person. I also disagree with the many, many people who oppose their marriage. But there has been an undeserved and somewhat irrational backlash from the undoing of the marriage; which isn't even undoing, it's just a reset.

To be fair though, are you really in any position to say that people who are frustrated by the choice are "irrational?" All feelings and opinions are valid. I have a close friend (a male in case that matterS) who flat out dropped the Superbooks after he read Dan Didio's interview about the supermarriage. He was just very turned off by the way it was handled. Now, you can disagree with him. You can put forth your opinion and that's valid. But it doesn't mean that his choice for that to be a dealbreaker for HIM is any less valid or worthy.

Regardless of whether or not we think the marriage was handled well, the fact that it was a publicity stunt is telling toward the type of story earlier Superman interpretations intended to offer.

I thought the marriage was handled beautifully in the hands of mature writers who actually understood the emotional nuances of committed relationships. I thought it never met it's potential in the hands of writers who didn't know how to write mature relationships. But the idea that it was a "publicity stunt" is patently false. The only thing that was a stunt was the TIMING of the marriage. The marriage itself was planned for several years by writers that truly felt that that was the direction that made the most sense for the story. It's really not right for people to continue to distort what actually happened back then. There is a rather wonderful book available that details everything that went into the creation of the Death of Superman arc and how that was in fact created in order to stall the marriage for the time being due to the television show. It also provides some fascinating commentary on why the writers felt that the marriage was the direction that made the most sense for the characters in the modern age. A lot of people put a lot of careful and thought into that choice. The TIMING of the marriage was the stunt. NOT the marriage itself. People need to understand that.

The point is, they've been trying to get rid of the marriage for a very, very long time. Almost since it happened. They could just never come up with a decent way to do it.

Again...not true per se. SOME writers have been trying to get rid of the marriage. Other writers were ALWAYS in favor of it and always felt it was the right thing to do. I can pretty much guarantee you that if Greg Rucka had not left DC Comics and if he was in a position of POWER at DC Comics that the marriage would still be intact. I can guarantee you that if Gail Simone was writing Superman again that the marriage would have been an integral part of her story because she has SAID that it would have been and that she was against losing the marriage.

Quite the contrary, a big number of writers and editors disliked the marriage, because they saw it just as that at the time.

It's really more that the people who loved the marriage were driven out of DC Comics or left DC Comics. There were a lot of people in favor of the marriage. It's just that most of them have left. And there are still people at DC who have admitted openly that they were not in favor of losing the marriage. Gail Simone has been vocal about it with the fans. Paul Cornell was always a fan of the marriage. Sterling Gates has said that he missed Lois and Clark the most because they were his favorite couple in the DCU etc. Not everyone felt that way.

And personally, I always felt that most of the people who wanted the marriage gone were living in an obsession with the Silver Age or were just unable to write mature relationships.

Even Grant Morrison has back-peddled now on the marriage. Because he was always famously against it and then when reporters who LIKED it basically challenged him about it he back peddeled and said that he didn't have a problem with it and loved it when people like Gail simone or Busiek were writing it.

It destroyed the duo's dynamic, as far as they were concerned. What we're seeing now is a 70-year-old status quo with a couple of twists that may enrich it.

And I've never agreed with that. I thought Greg Rucka had some amazing commentary a few years ago about why the idea that it "destroyed" their dynamic was just dead wrong. If anything, I think their dynamic is a journey and I don't think marriage ended that journey. I like the Triangle For 2 (when it is done RIGHT) and I think the Triangle is a rather essential starting place for Lois and Clark. But I find writer who want them to be stuck there forever to be limited and so uncreative. Marriage is not an ending. It's a new beginning for anyone who is truly ready to be with the right person. There was a wealth of stories and growth and conflict there that some writers just refused to explore because they remained locked in their vision of the Silver Age.

As for the "70 year old status quo"---that's not quite right.

Lois knew Clark's secret in the modern age for over 20 years. They were engaged for over 20 years. Dating for longer than that.

This "70 year status quo" that people like to talk about is not it at all.

You also have to remember that the entire premise of the Superman Family married Superman/Lois books was based on the idea that people wanted Lois and Clark together. And that was decades ago.

I also think it's faulty reasoning to assume that just because the "status quo" of Lois NOT knowing the secret and them not being married is "longer" that means that it's better for the modern age.

The truth is that a lot of the changes that occurred in Lois and Clark's relationship occurred, in part, because the way we view women in our culture has changed and the Superman books were finally reflecting that.

And at this point, millions of people and an entirely new generation grew up with a Lois and Clark who were committed rather than stuck in an endless status quo.

The highest rated episodes of "Lois and Clark" were the episodes when they were committed and ENGAGED. It was watched by like 22 million people. I didn't care for the way the writing and the postponement of the wedding went after that. I thought they threw too many roadblocks in that ruined it. But the reality is that that audience did not see the "endless status quo"----they saw them COMMITTED.

In modern years, like it or not, several million people now have grown up again with a Lois and Clark who were committed. When you consider Itunes and DVR numbers, Smallville was watched by several million people every week. The 200th episode was watched by 3 million people not including Itunes sales. And again, that was a Lois and Clark who were TOGETHER. The finale, though dissapointing for now showing Clark in the suit, AGAIN showed the two of them trying to get married and taking vows to be together for life.

I think it's a huge misconception that the "modern" status quo for anyone who grew up after the 1980's is the endless Triangle For 2. On the contrary, I think the dynamic most people on the street know now STARTS with the Triangle For 2 but eventually leads to the love story being able to be consummated.

When Henry Cavill and Amy Adams were cast in Man of Steel, why were all these websites making posts hoping that we "finally got a gorgeous sex scene between Lois and Clark in a film" (Yes, that was a real thing.) Why? Because the expectation now is that they will eventually be together. Not that the wil remain tortured and apart.

And I just don't really get why something that was developed in the last 25 years is somehow inferior in some people's minds to decades before it. It's the same problem I have with Barbara Gordon. People say that she was Batgirl first and for longer....except....that doesn't erase the last 20 years where she was Oracle and all the character growth and changes that took place during that time.

In terms of Lois and Clark, I don't really want to go back to a time when women were not treated as well in narratives. I really valued the last 25 years because it seemed like Lois was finally getting a fair shot in a culture that wasn't grounded in sexism.

To be fair though, are you really in any position to say that people who are frustrated by the choice are "irrational?"

Absolutely. Personal taste doesn't need to be rational. Arguments trying to justify it could definitely benefit from it, though. Like the simple fact that the marriage wasn't "done away with", which is what many seem to take issue with. Pete's marriage was "done away with". Lois & Clark have been reset.

This "70 year status quo" that people like to talk about is not it at all.

Of course it is. Them being engaged and married could have turned it around if it had either lasted longer, or DC themselves weren't treating it like a cancer. And even then, it wouldn't make the current dynamic unprecedented; it'd still be the leading dynamic, if for no other reason then just because it's an inevitable constant in every retelling. At least until Warner loses the rights to Lois Lane's name and character.

To be fair though, are you really in any position to say that people who are frustrated by the choice are "irrational?"

Absolutely. Personal taste doesn't need to be rational. Arguments trying to justify it could definitely benefit from it, though. Like the simple fact that the marriage wasn't "done away with", which is what many seem to take issue with. Pete's marriage was "done away with". Lois & Clark have been reset.

To me that seems like semantics to say it that way, except for the fact that they see it as a potential future while Marvel doesn't the same with Peter Parker. I think that may be your point though, that you believe DC wants to treat their relationship as "sacred" but not the sole option. Am I correct? If so, I don't disagree with you and I'm sure both Certainshades and Made of Steel don't either on this count. Whether that was more of a PR action, though is something a little more debatable and not something we can do from the outside as we are.

To be fair though, are you really in any position to say that people who are frustrated by the choice are "irrational?"

Absolutely. Personal taste doesn't need to be rational. Arguments trying to justify it could definitely benefit from it, though. Like the simple fact that the marriage wasn't "done away with", which is what many seem to take issue with. Pete's marriage was "done away with". Lois & Clark have been reset.

To me that seems like semantics to say it that way, except for the fact that they see it as a potential future while Marvel doesn't the same with Peter Parker. I think that may be your point though, that you believe DC wants to treat their relationship as "sacred" but not the sole option. Am I correct? If so, I don't disagree with you and I'm sure both Certainshades and Made of Steel don't either on this count. Whether that was more of a PR action, though is something a little more debatable and not something we can do from the outside as we are.

See, I don't think DC has treated their relationship with respect at all which is part of the reason why I have really been struggling with the company.

I'm not saying that to be dramatic or because I'm being irrational. I'm truly just trying to have an honest conversation here about where I'm coming from. I understand that others might have felt it or experienced it differently but I would hope that we could all try to understand it from another point of view.

I personally was sort of excited about the prospect of a reboot when it was first announced. But I subsequently found the public relations surrounding the dissolve of the marriage to be in very poor taste which, in turn, left a very sour impression with me towards the company.

Again, I understand that not all the guys on here saw it that way but I would hope that you could try think about how it might of felt for a female fan like myself to hear Matt Idelson call Lois a "trophy wife" because despite the fact that you personally don't think it's that bad....for WOMEN...that's a term that is usually used to degrade one's self-worth. It pained me to hear Lois written off that way which, to me, she was a female character that I had looked up and loved for a very long time both in the comics and in live action. Rags Morales, as the head artist on Action, really hurt me when he said such insulting things about marriage. I'm married myself and both my husband and I were disturbed by the nature of his comments. I was hurt that DC chose to release the end of the marriage to a celebrity tabloid site like TMZ---a website that is known for little else than celebrity divorce and sex tapes. I thought Lois and Clark and their legacy deserved better than that and deserved more dignity.

On top of it, it was painful for me that there was little effort taken throughout the last year---despite knowing the reboot was coming---from anyone on the Superman books to involve Lois more in the narrative and to actually spend some time giving Lois and clark a proper good-bye. Paul Cornell is a huge fan of Lois Lane and was a fan of the marriage so he did the best he could to repair the damage in Action #904 in the final pages and he did a GREAT job. But, for me, as a fan, the damage was already kind of done despite the fact that I love Paul Cornell.

I found it offensive DC comics chose to release the pages from SUperman #1 to a national publication with Jim Lee's commentary that we were supposed to "feel" for Clark. I thought that Lois Lane---as a female character that many people truly love---deserved better than being presented for the first time to a supposedly new generation of readers as coming out of bed with a guy...particularly since they were still married in the books at the time. I just thought it was a very insensitive and disturbing way to try to get attention as opposed to the respectful way they could have approached it.

I was offended that Dan Didio called the marriage a "stunt that only happened due to the TV show" because that's NOT TRUE. And sadly, there are still people (right on this very forum) who continue to get this wrong and there is zero excuse for someone in his position at DC comics not even knowing the true historyof company. Anyone actually working on the books in the 90's will say outright (as they did after Didio made that statement) that it was not true. The marriage was planned and in the works before the show was in producion and the choice to marry Lois and Clark had NOTHING to do with the tv show. It was only coordinated with it AFTER THE FACT for publicity but was not inspired by the tv show in the slightest. That's a fact. And it's a fact that people continue to get wrong and there was zero excuse for Didio not knowing that when it's something so well known that even a simple Wikipedia search will give you that info.

I also really didn't care for the commentary or language used when the editors were discussing the marraige or the relaunch. I am troubled by this cultural assumption---one that DC Comics ANd Marvel are guilty of---that marriage makes a man "less interesting" because it continues to feed into this cultural problem that we have where we teach young men that they should define themselves through how many sexual partners they can acquire and continues to paint "settling down" as "the ball and chain" that strangles your manhood. It's a very pathetic lesson to teach men and it devalues women in our culture because it paints the idea that women somehow "hold a man back" or make a man less interesting. It also paints a false view of marriage because it assumes that it's an "ending" and refuses to focus on the idea that marriage is a journey and that life does not stop after one is married---that new conflicts and challenges arise and that your life is filled with new and exciting choices---conflict that do not always have to revolve around a "third party" being introduced into the equation as if THAt is the only way there is conflict in a marriage. It's all just very disturbing to me and I didn't think it was handled well at ALL.

All in all, I just really felt that the way the marriage issue was handled was done very poorly. And I know I was not alone. I've watched fans have extensive conversations about this in other places and with comics writers like Gail Simone. It's not an uncommon opinion that DC did not handle the PR for the relaunch of the marraige well at all. They hurt a lot of people with the way they chose to handle it and unfortunately I DO think that has placed a stain on the new books for many Superman fans---particularly women. I know several female Supermans who have literally said that they feel like DC just doesn't care about them and didn't care if they hurt them. And you know...it's not for any man on here to say that that is irrational. That is a real emotion that women are feeling in response to what was done to Superman and I understand where those fans are coming from.

Of course it is. Them being engaged and married could have turned it around if it had either lasted longer, or DC themselves weren't treating it like a cancer. And even then, it wouldn't make the current dynamic unprecedented; it'd still be the leading dynamic, if for no other reason then just because it's an inevitable constant in every retelling. At least until Warner loses the rights to Lois Lane's name and character.

[/quote]

But it wasn't a 70 year status quo. That's what I'm trying to say.

They were committed for over 20 years. This "70 year" history people talk about was not 70 years because the status quo was changed over 20 years ago. Even the Pre-crisis books officially "ended" with Lois and Clark together with a baby. "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" was written to be a farewell "ending" to the pre-crisis Superman. The Golden Age Lois and Clark went off together in the Crisis.

There was also history for a marriage and for Lois knowing the secret going all the way back to the 70's.

At this point, there is a significant precedent in Superman's history for Lois and Clark to be married in some form. That Earth-2 marriage was a big deal at the time because it was the 40th anniversary of Superman and the entire point was to shake things up and to make this thing happen that everyone wanted to happen but the books just hadn't gotten the courage to do it yet. Those Superman Family books that featured the marriage in the 70's and 80's were popular.

On top if it, you had two television shows, one of which was watched by like 20 million people on ABC and one of which was watched by several million people when you included Itunes and DVR that again solidified the marriage.

And, again I think it's kind of damaging for people to point to a "status quo" that was developed before the rise of gender equality. THAT is the red flag here.

So it's fine for people to say, "Oh well, they weren't married in the 1940's." And it's like...uh...yeah. And in 1939, we thought it was ok for Black people to be portrayed as "happy slave stereotypes" in films. In fact, that was usually the ONLY way we portrayed Black people in cinema.

One could argue that there is a longer "status quo" of People of color NOT serving as leads or important roles in narratives since that kind of equality didn't actually start to occur until much later in the 20th century and it still something we are fighting for today. But to do would be ignorant of the way cultural dynamics affect narratives.

It's the same thing with women and Lois Lane is the perfect example of how that comes into play.

The 1970's/1980's were really the time when Lois's entire role in the narrative finally started to find some equality after being subjected to sexism for so many years. Don't get me wrong---the very fact that Lois HAD her own comic book in the 50's and 60's WAS a huge step for women in it's own way. The book itself was sexist and didn't treat her fairly but the fact that she HAD a book that outsold Batman at one point in time was a HUGE DEAL. The fact that she was a newspaper reporter and had a career in 1938 WAS a huge deal even though she was treated unfairly in the books. Siegel and Schuster weren't trying to be sexist. They were trying to create a strong woman and they were a product of their times.

THAT is the lens that you have to view this from. Because you can't just say, "Oh well there was as longer status quo with Lois treated like this..." when the reality is that the relationship went through significant and paramount changes LATER in Superman's history in conjunction with the way women were being treated in our culture.

It's not an accident that when women finally started being treated as equals in REAL LIFE that it started to influence the nature of the Superman narrative and ultimately meant that the Triangle For 2---a concept that was sexist when it was created in many ways---started to evolve.

Narrative have to evolve. And part of the reason they have to evolve is because we learn from our mistakes as a culture and we LEARN how to treat people as equals.

Personally, the only thing I took away from the decision to have the relationship done away with or reset (or whatever your preferred term is) was that we would get to see that relationship form and flourish all over again. Romance stories are not written about happily married couples. They're written about the story of how that love comes to be.

Don't you think this generation deserves to have that too? That's what the New 52 can be for them: a chance for us to see that love spring to life all over again. We're not talking destruction here, we're talking rebirth.

I mean, relax. They don't have anyone to take Lois' place in Action or in Superman. She's practically the only female principal character. If they were going to have superman out on the town, don't you think after five issues of each of these comics we would have seen evidence of that by now? No, there has only been Lois.

I'm still confused why so many fans are so attached to the relationship via marriage. The only thing that needs to exist between Lois and Clark is a dichotomy, and that dichotomy needs be interesting in a literary sense. Marriage isn't the be-all approach to that quality and suggesting that it is limits one's view of the characters - and perhaps relationships in general.